Introduction
Global labor history is a broad analysis of the evolution of work aspects that are often misrepresented under misconceptions. Some common misguided perspectives base global labor history on the elements of industrialization and the factory workforce (Scipes, 2016). The current view of labor is influenced by industrialization, which has often reduced the significance of manual labor in sectors such as farming (Scipes, 2016). This analysis explores the broader context of global history by first analyzing my personal perception of the subject and then discussing the concepts of global labor history that contribute to understanding the whole view.
What comes to your mind when you hear the term global labor history?
When I hear the term “global labor history,” I presume it is the study of labor history, working people, global unions, and global labor perspective. The central theme in my understanding of global labor history is the struggles for workers’ rights and social justice. Global labor has evolved from a different narrative and definition (Scipes, 2016). The past era was designed under the marginalization of minority communities and inequalities against women. The evolution of global labor history takes me back to the slavery era. Slavery was prevalent during the commencement of global trade, where marginalized communities were forced to work hard and unpaid labor (Scipes, 2016). Changes in cultural, social, and political dynamics have necessitated improvements in rights and influenced the evolution of global labor (Bronfenbrenner, 2007). The accomplishments that have improved the conditions for workers in wages, better environments, and representation evidence the importance of labor movements in shaping the course of global labor.
The migration of workers to and from different countries has designed the shape of global labor (Scipes, 2016). The global market is influenced by the migration of millions of workers from different nations searching for work (Bronfenbrenner, 2007). In my opinion, global history explores the challenges and opportunities presented to these migrant workers and their contribution to the global economy. The context can be presented in the scenario of the slave migrants forced to labor in the past industries (Bronfenbrenner, 2007). Despite the challenges in an era of discrimination and marginalization, they had better opportunities in a rapidly growing industry. The scenario does not propose that global labor has achieved equality or optimal benefits but instead proposes that the history of global labor shows we have made some significant positive steps, and we are able to make more improvements.
What, according to the Study Guide, is global labor history?
The study guide sheds light on the misconceptions that limit the grasp of global labor history. Most concepts perceive global labor history as the rise and industrialization of factory labor (Conrad, 2017). Although factory labor is a sector of the evolution of global labor history, it fails to encompass all other aspects, such as farming, service industries, and artisan crafts (Radkau, 2008). According to the study guide, global labor history comprehensively analyzes the evolution of labor from economic, social, and political dynamics. Global labor history appreciates both slave labor and wage labor by showing how labor has always been part of the global system (Conrad, 2017). Despite the disadvantages and limitations of workers in the past, global labor history stipulates that colonialism, nation-states, and capitalist firms influenced the struggle for equality and fairness.
The study guide sheds light on the place of labor movements in organizing unions, fighting for democratic rights, and opposing slavery and marginalization. The misconceptions around global labor history also portray a post-industrial world free from manual labor (Radkau, 2008). Industrialization is on a high, greatly influencing the state of global trade. Global trade determines the state and benefits of global labor by improving or depreciating outcome rates (Conrad, 2017). According to the study guide, global labor history is more comprehensive than that, encompassing the essence of factory work, manual labor, subsistence farming, and service industries. Despite the growth of the global market and the rise of industrialization, it is impossible to exist without manual labor and unindustrialized labor such as farming (Radkau, 2008). The study guide stresses dismantling this negative misconception in light of seeing global labor history in its resilience and struggles, which entail all sectors of work.
What can the concept “divisions of labour” contribute to understand global labour history?
Divisions of labor are central to understanding global labor history as they analyze the aspects of specialization and coordination in different work mechanisms (Marx, 1867, 1992). Labor is a diverse entity that can be a factor in mechanisms and associations in firms, regions, countries, and households. Labor from a limited, misguided factory view encompasses every aspect of work, meaning it is a prevalent factor in our daily lives. For example, in firms, divisions of labor are designed through a management hierarchy, which enhances productivity and minimizes cost (Marx, 1867, 1992). The specialization necessitated by the division of labor improves the relationship of workers by providing a specific way of carrying out activities. The coordination between firms in global markets, which influences the supply chain and lab or dynamics, is enhanced by the division of labor (Marx, 1867, 1992). Division of labor influences the shape of labor policies and relations since it determines the laws and customs governing firms, organizations, nations, and households.
The diverse experiences of laborers in different contexts are analyzed in divisions of labor, which is essential in understanding the evolution of global labor history. In the past, the division of labor can be examined from the specialization between slaves, sharecroppers, and waged workers (Marx, 1867, 1992). The different designations of work also had a significant influence on social status and cultural standing. Despite the marginalization and discrimination of minority individuals, the different divisions of labor depended on each other, which shows the interconnection of labor (Marx, 1867, 1992). These aspects of divisions of labor shed light on the complexities of global labor relations. The concept of divisions of labor also helps digest the connection between economic, social, and political factors in the history of global labor.
Which types of “control” over labor exist? Which role do they play in sustaining labor processes?
In labor, control is used in the context of mechanisms and strategies used by organizations and employers to manage and regulate their employee’s work and behavior. Control is perceived as a positive aspect that sustains labor by enhancing efficiency and productivity by ensuring all labor factors are in compliance and coordination (Amin, 1974). The two types of control over labor are direct capitalist control and indirect capitalist control. Direct capitalist control is prevalent in contract relationships between employers and employees. The employees are designated specific tasks, rewards, and punishments based on their contact stipulation (Amin, 1974). Waged workers, contractors, sharecroppers, and indentured laborers use contacts to ensure harmony between both parties as all parties understand their responsibilities (Smith, 2016). Direct capitalist control sustains the labor processes by providing a workforce for capitalist enterprises, which shapes and improves capitalist economies.
Indirect capitalist control occurs in situations where workers are neither in contracts with their employers nor coerced into working for specific firms. Indirect capitalist control is a situational outcome entailing labor significantly influenced by capitalist activities (Smith, 2016). Activities such as colonization, enclosures, and pre-capitalist economies push workers to work in capitalist firms due to the limitation of alternatives. Individuals in these capitalist adverse environments have no options but to work under no contractual agreement (Smith, 2016). Enslaved people, for example, are workers with limited options but to work in the provided environment. Indirect capital control sustains labor processes by providing a workforce, often through state or firm reinforcement or coercion (Smith, 2016). These aspects also shape labor relations and policy, which impacts capitalist economies.
Why might workers be discontent with their living and working conditions?
Workers’ discount on living and working conditions is influenced by moral and material conditions. As sources of income and livelihood, labor entails factors such as wages, working hours, and working conditions (Horne, 2020). The working environment is a diverse sector that affects the well-being of workers based on specific working conditions (Smith, 2016). Material factors such as low wages, unsafe working conditions, and limited tangible benefits enhance content in workers. Inequality is an issue in understanding the discount of workers from exploitive employment (Horne, 2020). In exploitive employment, although these factors are considered, some workers are depicted as superior to others since they receive better working conditions (Smith, 2016). Some examples of discontent situations due to material impact are hazardous environments, long shifts in factories for factory workers, and exploitative employment for immigrant workers.
Contrary to material influence, discontent also arises due to moral standards such as perceptions of justice and dignity (Roediger, 2007). Workers are humans with a need for moral preservation, which explores the fairness and violations in the working environment (Horne, 2020). There are different moral scenarios that influence the discontent with working and living conditions. Workers denied basic rights feel violated since they are treated as disposable aspects of the labor environment (Roediger, 2007). Instances of discrimination based on gender, race, and ethnicity show the indignity and inequality of the firm or organization toward its employees (Horne, 2020). These examples portray aspects that influence discontent on the basis of moral standards.
What is meant by the terms “structural power” and “associational power”?
Structural power refers to the influence workers hold due to their position in the labor process. Structural power can be referenced as a defensive mechanism based on the ability of workers to disrupt production and work processes through actions such as strikes (Wahl, 2011). The halting of operations during mid-production is meant to compel employers to cater to the needs of workers (Schmalz et al., 2018). An example of workers that hold significant structural power is assembly line workers in manufacturing industries. Every aspect of manufacturing in industries is significant; hence, a strike by a few workers would effectively affect the whole production process (Wahl, 2011). The labor unions of the 1960s and 1970s implemented structural power mechanisms to instigate negotiations with management. In the current market, network and logistic workers hold the structural power due to their ability to disrupt the entire global market chain.
Association power is a significant worker strength that comes from collective coordination to disrupt the labor processes even without structural power. Due to industrialization and the evolution of the global market, workers in organizations or systems might not hold the structural power (Schmalz et al., 2018). In this case, workers need to coordinate across different worksites and industries to ensure that they attain numbers that amplify their collective impact (Wahl, 2011). Workers can disrupt changes in production that disadvantage their input and output in the organization by strikes across multiple departments (Wahl, 2011). Associational power is also prevalent in rallies, political lobbying, and boycotts, where workers utilize their collective power for wider social and political changes.
Conclusion
Global labor history is an essential concept in understanding the significance and evolution of labor. Misguided interpretations often portray global labor history as an aspect of factory industrialization that fails to account for all other aspects of work (Scipes, 2016). Divisions of labor are essential concepts that shed light on the complexities of global labor history (Amin, 1974). Direct and indirect capitalist control are different perspectives that firms use to ensure the availability of a functioning workforce (Smith, 2016). Moral conditions such as inequality and indignity and material conditions such as long working hours, low wages, and unsafe conditions might cause discontent among workers (Roediger, 2007. Structural and associational power are essential for workers rallying for equality (Wahl, 2011).
References
Amin, S. (1974). Accumulation on a world scale : a critique of the theory of underdevelopment. Monthly Review Press.
Bronfenbrenner, K. (2007). Global Unions: Challenging Transnational Capital Through Cross-border Campaigns. In Google Books. Cornell University Press.
Conrad, S. (2017). What is global history? Princeton University Press.
Horne, G. (2020). The dawning of the Apocalypse: The Roots of slavery, white supremacy, settler colonialism and capitalism in the long sixteenth century. Monthly Review Press.
Marx, K. (1867). Capital (Vol. I). Penguin Classics.
Radkau, J. (2008). Nature and power. A global history of the environment. In pub.uni-bielefeld.de. Cambridge University Press.
Roediger, D. (2007). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. Verso.
Schmalz, S., Ludwig, C., & Webster, E. (2018). The Power Resources Approach: Developments and Challenges. Global Labour Journal, 9(2).
Scipes, K. (2016). Building Global Labor Solidarity in a Time of Accelerating Globalization. In Google Books. Haymarket Books.
Smith, J. (2016). Imperialism in the 21st century: Globalization, super-exploitation and capitalism’s final crisis. Monthly Review Press.
Wahl, A. (2011). The rise and fall of the welfare state. Pluto Press.
write